The general conclusion that "there are markets where active management can win" may be fine, but let's remember to use actual data to reach it, and to analyze the data carefully.
There is surprisingly little evidence suggesting benefits from Private Equity and Venture Capital investing, especially recently. Among the best studies was by Harris, Jenkinson & Kaplan 2015 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2597259), who found that while "average buyout fund returns before 2006 exceeded those from public markets," "post-2005 vintage year returns have been roughly equal to those of public markets" and while "venture funds from the 1990s substantially outperformed public equities, those from the early 2000s have underperformed." Other studies also failing to find a benefit from PE and VA include Demaria 2015 ("On a net basis, more than 20 years of U.S. PE do not deliver any significant out- or under-performance"); Ang, Chen, Goetzmann & Phalippou 2014 ("Over the sample, the cumulated private equity premium is zero, so private equity has had an alpha of zero"); Buchner & Stucke 2014 ("For buyout funds, annual alphas are slightly negative but statistically insignificantly different from zero"); and Phalippou 2014 ("the average buyout fund underperforms by -3.1% per annum").
In the real estate asset class, there has literally never been a study showing that private equity has performed as well as a passive, market-cap-weighted investment in exchange-traded equity REITs. At least a dozen empirical comparisons have been done, and every single one without exception has shown private equity real estate investing underperformed. Every single one.